base_tablePreview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about returning a sample and the persist option materializing a volatile table, but doesn't specify row count or exact behavior beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise paragraphs: first explains purpose and usage guidelines, second lists arguments. No redundant or unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose, parameter behavior, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it lacks details like how many rows are returned ('first few') and whether there are limits or performance considerations, but overall sufficient for a simple preview tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's argument list largely restates schema descriptions. It adds minor context (e.g., persist returns table name) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what's in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns a quick sample of first few rows from a Teradata table/view with no SQL required, and distinguishes from base_readQuery for filtered queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (explore/peek without conditions) and when not to use (when WHERE clause, filter, or SQL is provided), and points to base_readQuery as the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.